DEPTH OF DOCTRINE? DO NOT, You BETRAYAL

The anti-dogmatism is not, at source, only an irrational attitude, superficial and inconsistent: is much worse, is something extremely pernicious for the life of faith of the Christian community, because it is a project that aims theoretically well structured decisively to implement the reforms in the Church for years Hans Küng and his disciples, eg Enzo Bianchi, theorized as necessary to "walk" in the history of the Church and have prophesied as imminent realization […]

Author
Antonio Love

The term that is heard repeating these days, even after the interview of Pope Francesco in The Nation, is the necessity of an adequate “deepening” of the doctrine [see who]. It is the thesis of Gianni Gennari [on Corriere della Sera] the way of the desired "reverse" the Magisterium on natural methods: great changes, but that would be only "depth" of the doctrine of 'Human life. By analogy this interpretive scheme is applied to the question "synodal", that of communion for divorcees who were married civilly. However, this argument is also married to Andrea Tornielli (The Print), that already long ago spoke of "insights" in reference to the new doctrine of the Council on Religious Freedom.

… we live in the world of “labels”

portrait of Pope Pius XI

Seeing the use of this label that the media are applying the reform projects of the doctrine on the sacraments (Marriage, Penance and the Eucharist) I realized yetin time than would be desirable that journalists were limited to inform on current events ecclesial without continuing to confuse Catholics with their interpretations sociopolitical [see my previous article who].

Any label affixed to the facts of the Church, although it appears journalistically effective, does not help to understand what it is. The label is a claim interpretation quick and easy, “ready-to-wear”, but the effect on public opinion is negative, not only for the inevitable shallowness of this kind of interpretation, but also and especially for the message that indirectly conveys. L '' deepening ', label from which party, is no exception to the rule: with it the message that is conveyed is that the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, proceeds quickly to a substantial change of its moral doctrine, and consequently proceeds ineluctably toward a radical change of its pastoral practice, with the approval of all, believers and non-believers.

Those that are labeled as "insights" are therefore, in the intention of the sponsors, of substantial change in the doctrine hitherto taught by the Magisterium, and should therefore be labeled rather as a "break" with Tradition. In fact, these are "small steps" in the direction of legislation that would revolutionize the very structure of ecclesiastical discipline, to the point that - if indeed they were adopted by ecclesiastical authority - would entail a radical reform of the doctrine: but not in the direction indicated by Benedict XVI ("Reform in the continuity of the same subject the Church") but in the sense that Pope Ratzinger considered unacceptable, that is of aa real "rupture" with the Tradition, ie with the doctrine of the Magisterium, by the Council of Trent to Vatican II, from the encyclical Chaste marriage of Pius XI to the apostolic exhortation Familiaris company of John Paul II.

apostolic exhortation of St. John Paul II

Of course, we heard during the first phase of the Synod of Bishops about the family, many theologians and prelates auspice to overcome (ie the abolition) the teachings of Paul VI (Human life) and John Paul II (Familar company), and then we heard, on the same occasion, other theologians and other prelates who have pointed out that these changes are in contradiction, not with unimportant details, but with the essential meaning, deep, the message transmitted by the Church in those documents.

Who digs deep, with the theological reason, to find that message in its essence of revealed truth, realizes that a proposal that is in direct contradiction with it is not that his denial. In short, a revolution, a break, certainly not one of the many ways that can be done and is done by the fact that the Church to progress in the understanding of revealed truth, according to the formula, theologically perfect, a "homogeneous evolution of dogma". "Homogeneous" is evolution that leads to a doctrine that is part of the same "kind", ie does not propose a doctrine of another kind, but the same doctrine enriched accidental changes, with pastoral applications. In short, a break can not be called 'deepening'.

The term "investigation" is used by "Vaticanists", in their proverbial psychological subjection to the language from time to time prevailing in mass culture, because it is the term used for the speech and debates on the edge of a news. If the facts are separated from opinion, the views are the '' deepening '. That so called because it promises to deepen the meaning of a situation topical or a news item, without the intention to cancel. No deepening riguardor the "capital mafia" ends up denying that there has been an investigation by the judiciary and consequently a scandal and serious political repercussions. Deepening means going deep, and by going in depth one finds the "aletic core" of an event or a theory, which is what in the course of the analysis remains the same.

If it changes instead, we can no longer speak of "deepening": we must speak of "scientific revolution" (Thomas Kuhn). Applying this criterion to the epistemic ongoing discussions within the Church, you can not label it as "depth" to the proposal for a substantial reform, chand like those who patronizes the advent of the new "universal church" mold "ecumenical" and "humanistic" where are transposed instances of the schism of East andriLutheran form.

These distinctions may seem my quibbles or Byzantinisms abstract facing issues so vital and engaging as the access of divorced Catholics to Communion or the use of contraceptives in marriage between believers. But - I say - if a journalist or a newspaper reader does not like to go into this theological problematic, to take care of another: no one asks him to have a personal opinion on the school controversies between theologians or on the appointments and dismissals of high ecclesiastics. If it is a non-believer, you disinterest of these internal problems of the Church. If a believer, is interested only in what the Church teaches on these and other matters, without bothering to interpret the secret intentions of the Pope or to judge whether the Synod of Bishops are right conservatives or progressives.

the “political incorrectness” the Dominican theologian Yves Congar

No one will take my advice; but then, if one intends to enter into the merits of these issues, the only criterion of assessment is that serious theological, certainly not the socio-political, which is fine just for the record of another kind: financial, parliamentary, Judicial. And the evaluation criteria must be provided by competent persons, the considerations which must be analyzed with patience and with the intention to understand complex concepts, related to theoretical premises not immediately deducible and a huge mass of historical data. If you make this effort, the first thing that you will understand is that every true depth of revealed doctrine is a better com- understanding of his transcendence than the vicissitudes historical and cultural.

Said this, add: the implied intention of those who speak of "insights" is to convey to the public the message of a new Catholic pastoral should regardless of dogma: ignoring not only the facts but also indirectly proclaiming the futility or even worse the negative function, of "brake" to the news that would be suggested by the Holy Spirit.

And here I take this opportunity to repeat once again that this anti-dogmatism it is not, at source, only an irrational attitude, superficial and inconsistent: is much worse, is something extremely pernicious for the life of faith of the Christian community, because it is a project that aims theoretically well structured decisively to implement the reforms in the Church for years Hans Küng and his disciples (Enzo Bianchi) theorized as necessary to "walk" in the history of the Church and have prophesied as imminent realization.

These reforms, which are much more than a mere "deepening", distort the Church of Christ, making them deny that consciousness of himself as a "universal sacrament of salvation", not so much for the adaptations of his pastoral to the prevailing (adaptations that are needed, however,, so much so that there have always been) As for the charism of infallibility (which allows it to preserve and interpret according to the "mind of Christ" revealed truth) and for the promise of indefectibility (thanks to which it has always been and will always be holy, catholic and apostolic, able to administer the sacraments of grace).

… a Pope who had understood everything

I find it rather hypocritical use of the label 'study to propagate a reform of the Church runs to abolish the dogmatic foundations of his faith and his discipline. Because - as I have explained several times - there is a practice that does not call you back, at least implicitly, to a theory, ie in the regulative principles of the action, to the goals to be achieved as considered in itself positive, bearers of progress and happiness.

The anti-dogmatism is nothing but the hypocritical rhetoric whose, while denying the dogma of its function of orientation of the religious consciousness, work in view of certain changes in the Church that it considers necessary for the realization of its political and religious utopia. Catholic dogma, that is the truth revealed by God in Christ, is put aside, not because it is considered an abstract theory from which it can derive a practice "updated" but because we have chosen a different theory, rather the opposite, under which you want to promote a reformist or revolutionary practice. In short, There is declared enemies of dogma as such, but in reality you are fanatical supporters of a different dogma.

… a writer who had understood everything

If one listens to many voices sign of progressive reformer, notice that some, theologians most listened, have the courage to speak clearly of these dogmatic principles, attributable to historicism, declined in a Hegelian dialectic according to the scheme of "passing through the negation" (Repeal) of which I have already spoken on several occasion (see what I wrote about Hans Kung and his ecclesiology, who). But many poor and timid disciples acolytes of these opinion makers Church does not have the courage and the intellectual capacity of the state to which system ideological and dogmatic principles which are inspired in proposing certain mutations of pastoral practice as necessary to the progress of the Church in the time that sitiamo living. So then comes out the vapid speech of pastoral, while respecting the doctrine in words, contradicts the facts. And this contradiction presents hypocritically as 'deepening'.

Octave of Christmas

In placid night

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The article reproduced here was posted on 21 December 2014 in the online magazine

The New Compass Daily

THE SUCCESS OF CARDINAL
CARLO MARIA MARTINI

The Martinism is even more insidiously dangerous rahnerismo, who is the theological foundation. Indeed, Rahner principles of epistemological, logical and metaphysical contrary to Catholic dogma, Martini, much less equipped in terms of speculative, did not explicitly taken […]

John Cavalcoli OP

An urgent need of the Church today, fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, is still that of a straight line and its full application, which does not exclude the need or opportunity to some changes or corrections of some pastoral directives, that above all the proof of facts, were less cautious or even counterproductive.

As instead regards the doctrinal or dogmatic of the Council, the problem, even after a long time, remains the correct interpretation, due to a not always clear, some of its doctrines, especially the new ones, which explain and develop the data of traditional faith.

The Magisterium of the Church, in the past fifty years, you are very used to explain the true meaning of the doctrines conciliar - Just think of the encyclicals of Blessed Paul VI or St. John Paul II or Catechism of the Church Cattolicthe -; but at the same time not worked enough to correct misinterpretations, especially brand modernist, that over time have become increasingly marked by obtaining the license interpretation best, more modern and advanced than that proposed by the Popes, it has managed to make it appear to many as outdated and linked to the theology of the pre-council.

“Pop&Rock”. Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga and the new pastoral sassofonica. Nothing to say: times change and that change is good. Without going to “suspicious times” the pre Vatican II and remaining instead under the pontificates of Popes of the post council, a question arises: how they would react St. John XXIII and Paul VI Beato, but perhaps also the Saint John Paul II of the Eighties, before an image of the genre? They would have appointed a member of a grand council of wise cardinal? Meditate people, meditate …

Unfortunately the Popes in an attempt to preserve generous dialogue with the modernists, were not sufficiently defended by these accusations, because it is a success that they themselves have somehow allowed, maybe not to cause greater evils, that in the Catholic world would spread and affirm a double vision of the Church and Catholicism, almost two currents equal legitimacy and coexisting despite the contrasts between them: a current of majority, or at least a very powerful and influential at all levels of the Church, pastors and faithful, with members in the same hierarchy and the College of Cardinals, and especially in theological circles and academics, strong powerful advertising media, expression modernistic interpretation of the Second, and a current of minority, faithful to the interpretation of the Popes.

This current modernist knows well hide its roots disruptive and demolition and his duplicity under the appearances of a modern Catholicism, cultured, pleasant, moderate, accommodating, mitigated, tolerant, understanding, open, ecumenical, quiet and industrious, enemy of exaggerations and fanaticism.

Catholicism a genteel and polite, barcamenante and opportunistic, smart and manipulator, that calms the ire, attenuates contrasts, lover of pluralism and diversity, softens positions, avoids controversy, the stiffness and the meticulousness doctrinal, knows the good education, average between opposites, that all respects, everyone agrees, includes all, all excuse, has compassion for all, is open to all, all save, no one is enemy, of all is a friend, at least in words.

pictorial representation of whitewashed tombs

This is a beautiful facade, seductive and grandiose, but already with a careful look shows cracks and patches, behind which it is impossible to see the emptiness, nihilism and squalor. A giant with feet of clay. And this because it lacks a sincere love for the truth and for the absolute values, lacking intellectual honesty and clarity, no basis and metaphysical certainties, replaced by doubt, by gimmicks, by conveniences subjective, by relativism and moral laxity, from skepticism, by the accommodation diplomat, erudition sparkling, from trivial bonhomie, the fake piety.

QUANdo I worked in the Secretariat of State in the eighties I spoke of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini as a character who claimed to become an alternative to the Pope, and he has never denied: until a few months before his death, Corriere della Sera, dared to say that the Church of Ratzinger remained back two centuries [see who]. Still the same newspaper of Freemasonry, in that same period, he said, with apparent contradiction, than ever the Church has gone well in our times and cited as an example of Karl Rahner great teacher.

Image of 1985. Carlo Maria Martini, 57 year old, for five years metropolitan archbishop of Milan and two years Cardinal. In appearance and manner of porgersi the cardinal has undoubtedly been one of the most beautiful figures of the college cardinazio the last fifty years.

As we know, the death of the last Popes, emissaries of the great powers modernists were regularly called Martini, but the Holy Spirit, as was to be hoped and expected by the good, was of a different opinion. On another occasion, Martini said that there is no need to save the Church, but just the Holy Spirit, contradicting what the Council of Florence 1439-1442, which instead has the famous ruling Outside the Church, No safety, which, naturally, does not mean that God can not save by means known only to him, says the Vatican, those who are not his fault he did not hear the preaching of the Gospel [I refer to our article, who]. But that does not mean that does not belong to the Church. Belongs unknowingly.

Famous then is the thesis of Cardinal Martini, according to which "there is in us a potential atheist who cries and whispers every day its hard to believe ' [see who], so that faith is not absolutely certain and indisputable, but continuing debate and uncertainty never resolved between yes and no. It is not hard to imagine what moral conduct may result from such ideas. And in fact known its positions lax sexual ethics and the favor that he accords to the priesthood of the woman, the false prophecy of Enzo Bianchi, in addition to its relativist ecumenism and feel-good, on the line of one of Cardinal Walter Kasper. Moreover, on many occasions, I was able to receive and hear complaints from priests and seminarians are trained at Milan.

Image of 2002. Carlo Maria Martini, was truly a man who could see far?

We do not question the great biblical preparation of Martini; but we wonder what's so much doctrine, if he lacks fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church, that should be exemplary in a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, without this serious mistake Martini closer to Lutheranism? Remarkable was the presentation of the book by Vito Mancuso on the soul [see who], where Cardinal steering a middle course between the yes and the no avoiding to condemn as it should with clarity and outrage, - But at this point he could not do the presentation -, the horrible errors of false theologian, which certainly has satisfied hundreds of thousands of admirers of both, but do not know how satisfied a clear conscience as a Catholic and reasonable man. I'll stop here and do not go beyond. Already this essay is significant.

The Martinism in my opinion is even more insidiously dangerous rahnerismo, who is the theological foundation. Indeed, Rahner principles of epistemological, logical and metaphysical contrary to Catholic dogma, Martini, much less equipped in terms of speculative, did not explicitly taken. However Rahner also has the ability to translate in accessible terms and concepts simplified and even popular, very seductive, its abstruse, complicated and convoluted pseudo transcendental musings. He is very skilled in relativize the conceptuality of dogma with his “pre-conceptual experience Mathematical Analysis” (Anticipation) and it evoluzionista and its modernist gnoseology, but then he can use with great skill the more articulated and studied conceptuality to instill in the minds of unwary his mistakes. Utilizes the concept to destroy the value of the concept and to replace the false concept to the real thing.

Carlo Maria Martini during a solemn pontifical ambrosiano. When he sat on the Chair of St. Ambrose, his figure instilled a kind of sacred veneration

Outhner, Certain, not an exegete but a theologian or aspires to be a theologian or is regarded as such by those who do not know what is theology; and in this regard we ask Antonio Livi what you think. Now it is true that the theologian does not take into account the individual biblical themes for commenting. To him it is necessary and sufficient to cite the biblical passages on which to base his theological theses. But these quotes do not need to be frequent and systematic, as happens nell'esegeta or biblical scholar or even in biblical theologian. The theologian in the true sense and narrow, especially the systematic or speculative, ie the true theologian who does not express simply think vaguely religious or Christian, builds his knowledge through rigorous arguments and firm principles philosophical and metaphysical, always subject to the doctrine of the Church.

Now, Rahner, though explicitly advocate the principle Sola Scriptura, like Luther, neglect and Tradition, rarely cites passages of Scripture, because it knows that almost always would be contrary; think for example to the passages of Scripture that address the importance of the concepts dogmatic, of the Magisterium of the Church, of Tradition, absoluteness of the content of the moral law, of free will, composition of the human body and soul, of merit, of sin and grace, of paradise, purgatory and hell, the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the world, the value of the priesthood and sacrifice of the Mass, etc..

Carlo Maria Martini elderly and sick, shortly before his disappearance, always retained the manly beauty of her figure and her looks solemn.

Martini, starting from Rahner, still retained a certain modesty or perhaps prudence, prepare a Catholicism that, if non assume il Pantheism rahneriano, However collects its anthropocentrism buonistico pro-Lutheran, e, note well, a Lutheranism farther away from Catholicism than was the same Luther, Since the biblicism Martinian is what Rahner explicitly inferred from Bultmann, known liberal Protestant of the last century, follower of Heidegger as it was the same Rahner.

Martini therefore attenuates Hegelianism rahneriano and processes a Catholicism near Luther, without fully separate from heresies of Luther, nor those of Rahner. Catholicism Compromise wants to be Catholicism, but without detaching completely, to a misunderstanding, opportunistico and confusionistico ecumenism, eh da Rahner, nè of Luther. It is a false interpretation of ecumenism wanted by the Second; but what are the reasons for the success of biblicism Martinian.

The problem posed by Martinism is that it, for its respectability, its prestige, his apparent moderation and his international success, always in apparent harmony with the Holy See, it was stated in the College of Cardinals by the establishment of a powerful current, is very likely that supports kasperiana and other cardinals filorahneriani or filomodernisti. However, it is easy to imagine that within the sacred college currently exists a situation of great distress, given by the fact that even the Martinism, as both a rahnerismo mitigated and softened, is not entirely free from the principles of the corrupters and solvents rahnerismo, closely linked with the Lutheran heresy in its further development Hegelian and Heideggerian.

Carlo Maria Martini was a man by the melancholy look, even when he smiled. Elegant and hieratic, of living and the dead. In their sober but solemn her figure has always personified a model of Prince of the Church. Through the intercession of St. Ambrose Bishop and Doctor of the Church, of which he was for over two decades successor, may he rest in peace in God's grace.

So what we "boys" of the Island of Patmos we hope and we pray is that the current best of the College of Cardinals, that was expressed in the recent synod against the separatist tendency, free from temptations modernist or conservative, wants to be close to the Holy Father in the task with increasing urgency is imposed, thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church and Queen of Apostles, performing with clarity, decision, wisdom and energy to its irreplaceable function principle and guarantor of the unity of the Church, inducing sinners to repentance, lowering the proud, comforting the weak, reconciling with each other factions adverse, nell’ harmony between the different currents in the reciprocity of gifts received, in the victory over the satanic forces, for the edification of the kingdom of God and the irradiation of the Gospel to the whole world.

Fontanellato, 12 December 2014

________________________________________________________________________

Canto Advent Rite Ambrosiano: For you light

The authors of the Island of Patmos promote the protection of the heritage of good singing and Latin liturgical

THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS: HISTORY OF LOST OPPORTUNITIES

Pope Benedict, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few allusive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith of Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open.

..

.

Author
John Cavalcoli OP

.

.

You are Petrus …

Catholic thought is in fact and in law by the conjunction of the Magisterium of the Church with that of theologians. The guide, the authentic interpretation and the guarantee of the truth of the doctrine of the faith is chaired by the Magisterium of the Pope. Task instead of theologians is to investigate the remaining issues advancing opinions or interpretative hypotheses or proposing new solutions, in order to promote the advancement of knowledge of the Word of God, submitting to the judgment of the Church of the discoveries and new theories.

Vintage print depicting the seated of Vatican I

Il Teaching, in guarding, propose and interpret the data revealed and approve or reject the new doctrines of theologians, no mistake, as it enjoys the assistance of the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ to him until the end of the world. Instead the doctrines of theologians, especially when they fail to measure up to the Magisterium or they misunderstand the teachings, may be incorrect. But also a certain theological doctrine (theologically certain), albeit strictly deduced from principles of faith, can never claim to be considered in the Church as a truth of faith, because it is always simple human doctrine, as founded on faith. Only the Magisterium in fact it, with unerring judgment and irreformable, this grave task of determining and defining the truths of faith for Christ's mandate. However, it may happen that a new theological doctrine of interpretation or explanation of what has been revealed to be having so much importance or validity in the eyes of the Magisterium, these elevates the dignity of the dogma of the faith.

Altogether historic fact of Catholic thought therefore necessary to distinguish carefully the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium in matters of faith or dogma - Pope alone or with the Council - the doctrines or opinions current among theologians, doctrines that, given their debatable and uncertainty, may legitimately be conflicting with each other, without compromising any of them necessarily in the matter of faith or sound reason. Some theories may be more conservative or traditionalist, other more innovative or progressive: anything wrong, nothing dangerous, nothing to worry about, nothing scandalous, but rather normal phenomenon, physiological and profitable, legitimate expression of freedom of thought, which results between the different currents or schools mutual enrichment, provided it does not break the fundamental unity, convergence and agreement on the essential truths and that does not come out of the bounds of true faith.

Farinata all'Alighieri illustrates the condition of heretics

The regime or normal operating level ecclesial and collective thinking Catholic entails of law and fact, in history, a general agreement in principle between the positions of the Magisterium and the theologians, unless extraordinary painful and inevitable deviations, that are found in theologians rebels, usually characterizing the phenomenon or schism or heresy. This phenomenon was severe, macroscopic, widespread and impressive to say the tragic with the birth of Lutheranism. But in the history of the Church's Magisterium has always, all in all, managed to adjust, control and dominate the climate or the general situation, so as to ensure the overall team theological and faithful a certain uniformity, consistency and obedience to the Magisterium, while theologians, for their part, are always, whole, felt willingly to say proudly representatives of the Magisterium, so that the faithful who wanted to know the way of the Gospel and the Church's doctrine could always turn to the theologian, any theologian, and received from him the authoritative answer, chiara, persuasive and safe; in short, he was the trusted and authoritative guide to walk in the truth of the Gospel and be in communion with the Church. Those who wanted to leave the Church would go openly, as indeed did the same Luther - going from Rome! —, and nothing remained treacherously and hypocritically pretending to destroy it from within to continue being Catholic and maybe boldly as a Catholic “advanced”. Thus the enemies of the Church, eventually discovered by good theologians or reported by the faithful, were promptly, without endless prevarications, declared as such by ecclesiastical, so were well known, and then the faithful were also less educated way to recognize them, to guard against and to stay away, as we distinguish the good from the poisonous mushrooms.

the Holy Pontiff Pius X

The shepherds, with their doctrine, fidelity to the Pope, prudence and love for the flock, knew unmask these impostors, these antichrists, For false Christs and false prophets, these wolves in sheep and put them up against the wall. We recall in this regard the wonderful encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X. Today heretics succeed done under the nose and no one notices, no one gives thought, no one intervenes, indeed receive praise and achieved success, teaching assignments and those who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes, is at least teased say the least.

I theology, once, as priests and religious, by virtue of their mandate ecclesiastical, were humbly and diligently aware of their mission and therefore of their grave responsibility before God, to superiors, to the Church and to the souls of their delicate office of Doctors of the Catholic truth, nor passed to anyone for the head to create doctrines subjective and arbitrary, as does the good doctor, which feels representative of medical science, and you might look good from inventing personal practices without scientific basis. Instead, unfortunately, from the years of the immediate post council began a very serious phenomenon of cleavage between the Magisterium and theologians. Many bishops, naively and enthusiastically convinced of the advent of a “New Pentecost”, relaxed their vigilance replacing the bonhomie to perspicacity, respect for human zeal brave, their own interests to defend the flock against wolves, gooders to the goodness and mercy for exchanging weakness.

un'assemblea plenary dell'assisa Vatican 2

I theology, especially those who were experts of the Council (1), their part is mounted head and, there methods protesting, began to be believed, independently and against the Magisterium, as custodians of God's Word and unappealable infallible interpreters of Holy Scripture, as well as the documents of the Second, that conversely distorted in the modernist sense. At this point we have the roots of the crisis which we suffer today. These consist in this: the subversive and revolutionary movement of theologians, The result has passed into history as “Sixty-eight of the dispute”, was traded by many in the people of God and among themselves pastors and theologians as a doctrinal revolution brought about by the same Council, which would change the data of faith until then considered immutable, especially about the superiority of Christianity over other religions, on the concept of Revelation and of the Church and about the condemnation of the heresies of the past, condemnation that would barred.

clouds on the Church

In Actually the new doctrines conciliar, correctly interpreted, beyond some expression not entirely clear, were not at all a break or denial of the dogmas traditional, but on the contrary their explanation and exposition in a modern language, suitable to be understood by the man of today, neither approach the council to modernity was to be understood in the manner modernistic as uncritical subjection to modern errors, but rather to the proposal of a healthy modernization or, as was said, “updating” the thought and life of Christians, that collectsgoes to theuce the immutable word of God can be as valuable in modernity.

Instead arose two tendencies ecclesial and doctrinal who saw in the doctrines of the Council a break or change compared to the traditional doctrine and convictions of the past, inspired by a total intake of modernity: one of Lefebvre, which, on the pretext that the council are not new solemn dogmatic definitions, denied the infallibility of doctrines council accused of being infected with liberalism, Enlightenment rationalist, Indifferentism, secularism, filoprotestantesimo and anthropocentrism, all errors that had already been condemned by the Church in the nineteenth century and in previous centuries, especially the First Vatican Council and that of Trento.

the German Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner

The other stream which appeared and still appears to many with the chrism of officialdom and interpreter of’ modernization reconcile, is one that has long been called or self-proclaimed “progressive”, title seen by many as highly positive and coveted, while this current calls with contempt “conservative”, “traditionalist” O “an integrist”, or more recently “fundamentalist” the current lefevriani, in which, however, includes indiscriminately all those who do not accept his modernism. For many years this current, very strong today in the Church, mainly due to the contribution of Rahner, thrived rubbing of Mr title of progressive, reference to the value of the undoubted progress, the new and modern, but in reality for its excesses increasingly discovered and impudent, typical of those who try the false security of being in command, has increasingly revealed as modernist, and then clear falsification of the true teachings of the Second, which they promote the modern, certainly not endorse modernism, heresy already condemned by St. Pius X.

Wanting to express ourselves in the language sports, we could say that the local ecclesiastical authority and also at the top was taken “counterattack”. After the climate of dialogue and peaceful confrontation intra and Extra ecclesial created by the extraordinary charisma of St. John XXIII, it was widely spread belief in the Episcopate and in many theological circles that now no longer existed or heresies, if there theologies which marked a departure from the official doctrine of the Magisterium, it was mostly questionable doctrines or expressions of theological pluralism or maybe some attempts’ bold innovation to watch with interest and benevolence. In fact things were not nearly so. Starting from the immediate post-modernist tendency council, taking advantage dell'immeritata confidence that he learned from a cunningly tear episcopate naively optimistic, began compact and bold to come to light, secure impunity and even with the halo of progressivism, almost to implement a plan international precedent, coming particularly from the Protestant tradition, secretly developed previously.

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs from thistles?” [Mt 7, 15-20]

The few that signaled the impending danger, like Maritain, the von Hildebrand, the de Lubac and Danielou, certainly not suspected of conservatism or closed to new, characters were seen as troublemakers, birds of ill omen, nostalgic Inquisition, damper that, as they say, breaking eggs in the basket. Those “doomsayers”, catastrophic and discouraging, from which St. John XXIII had ordered to shop. Yet there he realized the imprudence which had fallen, lowering his guard, as if they were missing the consequences of original sin, and now the Church and theology had started a new era of all men of good will, all intimately solicited in the preconscious (Anticipation) experience divine athematic pre-conceptual, all cristianthe anonymous yearning for God, all object of divine mercy, according to the honeyed formulas rahneriane. Born that “gooders destructive” and that false mercy recently denounced by the Pope in his address to the synod of bishops.

The Council was undoubtedly a progressive approach, in the sense of wanting to bring to the Church a new push or a new impetus to the future, using the values ​​of the modern world: the Council, rather than on the need to preserve or recover or restore lost, pointed on the duty to go ahead, to renew and advance, changing what was no longer suitable or no longer needed to the new times or the new requirements, that it was intended to prepare and meet in an eschatological horizon. No wonder, therefore,, if the current very large Fathers and experts who appeared better interpreter of the Council was the one that was agreed to call “progressive”, while those that were resistant to the new or did not understand him or too insisted sull'immutabile and tradition, they began to call them with an accent of endurance and not of admiration, “Conservatives” O “traditionalists”.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Among the latter emerged, as you know, since the early years of the post council the famous figure of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which soon began to attract a following, up to found the equally famous Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), still exists and thrives. Monsignor Lefebvre, supporter not entirely lit the sacred tradition, that he thought the council had betrayed, along with a few others, Instead of seeing the heresies denounced by the Holy Office in the theology of the modernists, instead had the great naivety to find them just the same council, who then accused of terrible mistakes already condemned by the Popes of the nineteenth century, as liberalism, rationalism and indifferentism.

More recently, in the eighties, Romano Amerio has joined the list of alleged errors of the Council “mutation of the concept of Church”. According to his disciple Enrico Maria Radaelli, the council would instead “overturned” the church. Paul Pasqualucci, for its part, note the presence of”anthropocentrism”. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini instead sees a contradiction in the documents of the Second Vatican with. The historian Roberto De Mattei then deny the infallibility of the doctrines of the Council under pretext that in them there is no dogma defined according to the rules set out by the First Vatican Council. All of them confuse the doctrines of the Council with the modernism born after it. It is harmful confusion which, if one part involves a straight definition of modernism according to the criteria offered by St. Pius X, other charges of modernism just that Vatican II that, on closer, it is the wise antidote with his proposal of a healthy modernity in the light of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church and of St. Thomas Aquinas, as did, for example, Jacques Maritain.

the Dutch Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx

From the first rising of lefebvrismo Paul VI took him with an attitude very severe, while remained mild and indulgent towards rahnerismo. This behavior is not fair unfortunately remained in Pontiffs following up the current. Benedict XVI tried an approach to lift the excommunication Lefebvrians with their bishops and with the famous motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. In truth the rahnerismo was felt even in the liturgy with the phenomenon of the desecration of the sacred and secularization, consequence of the false concept rahneriano priesthood and the denial of the sacrificial character of the Mass. Vice versa, theologians who identified with the current general and equivocally that “progressive”, gathered around the journal Concilium, still exists. But when it became clear the misunderstanding and appeared that some “Progressives” in fact they were modernists, then there was the separation of one from another: one part, progressives really honest and faithful to the Council and to the Church, as Ratzinger, by Balthazar, Shortcut, de Lubac and Danielou, became aware of criptomodernisti, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Schoonenberg and other. So it was that the true progressives separated by seconds founding the magazine Communio. As for Ratzinger, realizing the modernist tendency of Rahner, abbandono e lo lo crítico severamente in Principles of Catholic Theology (2) the 1982, a year after he was appointed Prefect of the CDF from San Giovanni Paolo II.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani with Cardinal Karol Wojtyla

In 1966 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, pro-prefect of the Holy Office, now become the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, along with the Secretary, the most learned christologist Pietro Parente, letter sent un'allarmata (3) the presidents of episcopal conferences denouncing in 10 points a number of serious errors that were snaking among theologians called “Progressives”. To many this serious complaint appeared to be exaggerated or a kind of cold shower; to others, already infected by modernism, must have caused irritation and appeared to be a brake or a reactionary unbearable condemnation of the new theology promoted by the Council.

The new Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), led by Cardinal Franjo Šeper, unspoken truth proof enough energy to cope with the serious problems reported by Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Parente, did then Cardinal. These, with the insight and courage that had characterized previous years, wrote in 1983 a golden book (4), that could have been the text of the papal encyclical, indicating the heresies of many theologians, as Küng, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, 3,625 seater Tata Steel, Hulsbosch and other. Unfortunately only a small part and so too bland CDF censured these authors, which in the majority could proceed unhindered to spread their errors, protected by powerful forces filoprotestanti and philo, perhaps clandestinely They penetrate the Church itself.

the young Dominican theologian Tomas Tyn

Since the early years of the post council there was a host of good theologians and prelates, which is premurarono to comment on the texts of the Council in the line of the Magisterium, showing their continuity with the previous Magisterium, defending them from the accusation of modernism, and removing them from the manipulation of the modernists. Among these there were theologians and prelates Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Jacques Maritain, Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Father Raimondo Spiazzi, John Guitton, Jean Galot, the Dominican theologians of Rome, Florence and Bologna, and Alberoni College of Piacenza to the Servant of God Father Tomas Tyn in recent years. Unfortunately, their work in the decades meritevolissima, not entirely ignored by the Holy See, was almost overwhelmed by the two opposing parties of Lefebvre and the modernists, the first with a short-sighted and obstinate attachment traditionalism exceeded, seconds, strong of success, with a gradual climb to positions of power in the Church, beginning with the win in Sixty journalists, young people, i laici, the lower clergy and religious and gradually going up to the conquest of the upper levels of the episcopate and in more recent years by penetrating in the same college of cardinals.

The disturbing signs of what we have had recently at the Synod of Bishops, so that the best part of the College of Cardinals, headed by cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Müller and Leonard Raymond Burke, has felt the urgency to intervene in defense of the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope, but it does not seem to have shown towards them sufficient gratitude for the valuable work undertaken by them.

the Blessed Pontiff Paul VI

Paul VI, which went the very serious task of enforcing the decrees of the Council, soon found herself in front of a difficult situation, that he himself, as it had to confess a decade after the Second, not included (5). Modernists Dutch, with incredible timeliness, already published in 1966, developed under the influence of Schillebeeckx, with the permission of Cardinal Bernard Jan Alfrink, the famous “Dutch Catechism”, published in Italy in 1969, that was a huge success. The Catechism, certainly not deprived of quality, but it has remained to this day the manifesto of modernist Church, contained numerous heresies and serious doctrinal deficiencies, Paul VI was compelled to correct by a special commission of cardinals in 1968. Evidently this catechism was the implementation of a great secret plan already drawn up during the years of the Second, during which many experts guidance modernist cunningly concealed and unfairly their heresies under a correct external behavior, indeed sometimes giving a contribution doctrinal commendable during the work of the Council. Their disease in them remained in incubation and then came clearly to light only since the years of the immediate post council (6). Meanwhile he was gaining more and more support the thought of Karl Rahner, which had been one of the most influential experts of the Council, adviser to Cardinal Franz König. Rahner on the principle of identity of being with being thought, that confuses being as such with the divine being.

the ancient snare pantheist

This pantheistic view the human being is reduced to the divine; the divine (the “grazia”) enters into the definition of the human, but retaining a historical aspect (“man is transcendence and history”), relativized the concept of human nature, human knowledge and the natural law, the Hegelian model, while the divine being is essentially human. Christ then is the divine summit of man and God is necessarily Christ. Hence the pantheistic confusion of grace with God, understood as constitutive of man. Every man is essentially and necessarily in grace. It can neither be bought nor lost. Sin does not take away the grace but cancels itself, because it is inconsistent. Christ saves not as redeemer (mythical concept), but as a factor of the passage of man to God and God becoming man. Faith is not doctrine or conceptual knowledge, but encounter with God, self-awareness and experience of God pre-conceptual and athematic (Anticipation). It involves on the level of a fundamental option for God, act of supreme freedom, for which everyone is saved regardless of the acts categorical, Empirical and finished, own free will, cognitive and moral, good or bad, that arise in terms of changing history and its. Hence the relativity and mutability of the dogma, inevitably uncertain and fallible, unlike the experience of faith still saving, that experience is the becoming of God in history.

one of the first prints of the Dutch Catechism, immediately translated into several languages ​​and distributed worldwide

With the emergence of these ideas Rahner, line of this Catechism Dutch, even character-Enlightenment rationalist, assumed an accent clearly pantheistic Hegel-Heidegger in “Foundations of Faith” ie Rahner, published in Germany in 1976 and in Italy in 1977. This time no commission of cardinals had the courage and wisdom to condemn this pseudo-catechism (7), worse than the previous. The modernists, become increasingly powerful, began to silence the Holy See itself. In fact, Paul VI did not take any measure. There was no authoritative refutation by some members of the Holy See or theologian in sight. Even the CDF, led by Cardinal Seper, did nothing. Rahner was too afraid. To tell the truth, the serious mistake pastoral of the Holy See was in my opinion to let prevent the Dutch Catechism, forgetting the providential and timely care of the Church of the Reformation Tridentine, which, immediately after the Council of Trent and almost as his final document and summary, published the famous and useful Catechism of Trent, which basically is still valuable.

Paul VI, in the course of his pontificate, proposed us or by themselves or through the CDF considerable body of doctrine, that in addition to developing the doctrines of the Council, also refutes the false interpretations and sentencing errors arising, but has never been able to tackle head and explicitly the problem of rahnerismo. Indeed Rahner appointed member of the International Theological Commission, from which shortly after, disappointed because you could see rejected his ideas, he came up with annoyed tone and arrogant accusing her of conservatism. Paul VI with many essays and acute interventions against secularism, the spirit of dispute, the immanentismo, the antropocentrismo, false carismatismo, Liberalism, false news, dogmatic relativism and evolutionism, the desecration of the liturgy, laxity and moral subjectivism, he shot several times towards the target, but without center it never completely, so i rahneriani, with the audacity and hypocrisy that characterizes them, have always felt safe and allowed to continue in their ideas and in their costumes.

the Blessed Pontiff Paul VI

The 1974 could perhaps be an opportunity to solve the problem of rahnerismo with good condemnation of his mistakes and the indication of the true path of renewal and progress of theology. But unfortunately Paul VI also lost this opportunity, which was given by a major conference on St. Thomas Aquinas in the seventh centenary of the death, organized by the Dominicans, which had the support of well 1500 Scholars from around the world. For this occasion clearly emerged on the world scene International Theological the great figure of the most learned and wise Father Cornelio Fabro, who elaborated (8) the design of the beautiful letter “Light Church” Pope Father Vincent de Couesnongle, Master of the Order of Preachers, dedicated to recommend, with a wealth of suitable topics, the studio, the deepening and spreading of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as its use for the comparison with modern culture, in accordance with the provisions of the Second (9).

theologian Stigmatine Cornelio Fabro

In the same year 1974 Fabro published The anthropological turn of Karl Rahner (10), an investigation of the roots acute epistemological and metaphysical thought of Rahner, powerful one studio, in which the theologian Stigmatine demonstrated irrefutably, texts at hand, making use of his exceptional knowledge and of St. Thomas and of German, the abominable although fascinating imposture with which Rahner, falsifying the same texts Thomistic, claimed submit Aquinas, Doctor of the church, as conforming to Hegel, whose idealism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. What clearer tacit message sent to Paul VI of the absolute necessity not to keep your feet on two brackets, but the fact that the statement of the truth can not fail to result in the condemnation of error and in this case the clear and unequivocal statement that the renewal and progress of theology ordered by the council did not have to move from Rahner but by St. Thomas? But nothing came from Paul VI. The opposition of good theologians not discouraged. Aware of their responsibility towards the souls and loyal to their duty of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church, continued to report dangerous errors Rahner, albeit sadly, as was to be expected, the rahnerismo not backward, and indeed strengthened to date. The history of this terrible struggle within the Church I briefly told in my book on Rahner (11), that must be updated for example with the persecution made to the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in which it is not difficult to see the revenge of rahneriani for international theological Congress antirahneriano the Franciscan 2007 (12).

first blessing Urbi et Orbi of John Paul II

With the election of St. John Paul II had the impression that the papacy was able to take the situation in hand. The Pope in 1981 replaced as head of the CDF, Cardinal Seper with the great theologian Joseph Ratzinger, and an immediate result you began to notice a more decisive stance against errors Schillebeeckx and condemnation of the errors of liberation theology. Ratzinger was able to hit some followers of Rahner, but the same Rahner, who died in 1984, remained untouched. The rich teaching of John Paul II undoubtedly corrected many errors Rahner, but he did so only allusive and generic, merely expose sound doctrine, without going into the merits of the questions accurately, how does the good doctor who takes an accurate and precise disease, in order to affix the appropriate remedy.

Large enterprise of the Pope was the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. Although this undoubtedly was indirectly a robust antidote errors Rahner, though of course he could not be appointed. Interesting how then Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the Catechism as a criterion to discern the errors of theologians. The Pope would have had two great chances to tackle head, once and for all, the vexed question and gangrenous: le due Encicliche great Splendor del 1993 e Fides et Ratio del 1998. Only in the first there is a hint to the distinction Rahner, without that Rahner is appointed, between the “transcendental” and the “categorical”, which is expressed in morality in”fundamental option” and in the “acts categorical”. Like this, still in the years 2004-2005, the year before the death of the Pope, the struggle between rahneriani and antirahnriani revived to great: with a congress of opponents in Germany 2004 (13), which followed, almost polemical response, a conference in his favor at the Lateran University, during which the only voice that was heard in strong opposition was Monsignor Antonio Livi.

Karl Rahner, provides

Undoubtedly there is to be horrified to see the success of Rahner, if he was celebrated in the most prestigious of Roman Pontifical Universities. It is the sign of a dramatic situation, that more and more urgently asking to be healed, especially considering the disastrous consequences of the ideas of Rahner in the field of morality and ecclesial life. In this climate of heated battle and I thank the Lord I'm amazed how with the permission of my superiors, which also are grateful, I could publish my book on Rahner, which has had some success, although I refer the deaf war that rahneriani make him and the contempt of which the cover. Yet I am always here, ready to correct any errors of interpretation and reasons and listen to his defense. But no one shows up.

first blessing Urbi et Orbi by Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI, the acute critic of Rahner, ascended to the papacy, where he would have all the expertise, intelligence, the authority and the power to act for the solution of the grave problem, he unfortunately did nothing and probably for those few suggestive interventions that did, has brought upon the ire of rahneriani, that led him to abdicate and then to give up the Petrine ministry. The encyclical Light of Faith of Pope Francis, completion of that begun by Benedict, repeats cliches and completely ignores the issue. Today the problem is therefore still open. Pope Francis never speaks of Rahner. But do not believe that is the best solution. Rahner is well-known and followed. His serious errors, who continue to give, have been demonstrated for fifty years from a huge array of scholars and the Magisterium of the Church in the past fifty years, in the condemnation of many mistakes, still glimpse the shadow left of rahnerismo, not absent, for example, in the current gooder emerged even at the last synod of bishops. It is not, therefore, come the time to “put on, as they say, the tables”? Why pretend to ignore what everyone knows? There are still some stragglers self-styled progressives who have not yet figured out where it comes from evil? If it is as clear as it is clear its origin and nature, moreover, given that there are remedies, why not acknowledge it frankly a good time and decided to treat him, having regard to its harmful consequences, after a diagnosis precise and detailed? Maybe that evil shall go alone?

Fontanellato, 21 November 2014

Entrance Sunday First Advent

The authors of the Island of Patmos promote the protection of the heritage of good singing and Latin liturgical

_______________________________________
1. It is said that Don Giuseppe Dossetti claimed that “the council had made him”. Not to mention the fire that have become part of the mainstream press on the part played by secularist Rahner at the Council.
2. German edition Erick Wewel Verlag, Munich 1982, French edition Téqui, Paris 1985.
3. Letter to the venerable prelates Conferences, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The documents of the Second Vatican Council from the moment of the completion of the second (1966-1985), Vatican Publishing House 1985.
4. The crisis of truth and the Second Vatican Council, Po Institute of Graphic Arts, I rovigo 1983.
5. “We expected a new spring, and came a storm”.
6. Wrong, so, those historians, as De Mattei, who argue, on line Lefebvre, that these experts would give an address at the Council modernist. E’ possible, indeed it is likely that some modernist theses have emerged during the debates, which greatly worried Paul VI, but they then disappeared at the time of the final documents. So too is the wrong interpretation of the Council given by the School of Bologna, for which it should be, in official documents, track one “spirit” l’ “event” that goes beyond the letter retrivamente conservative , and that does not consist merely in his modernist ideas. It is also wrong to see the card.Kasper in the Council of “contradictions” “unresolved tensions” between elements fissisti and traditional exceeded and”new”, evolving, that is no more than that modernism, for which he sympathizes. The valuable contribution given by the Council in collaboration with Rahner Ratzinger is illustrated by Peter Paul Saldanha in his work as Revelation “self-communication of God”, The Urbaniana University Press, Rome 2005.
7. Rahner himself did not have the nerve to call him “catechism”, but in practice it is evident that it intends to propose an initiation into the faith nonetheless affected by Gnosticism Protestant and antithetical to the Catholic.
8. Me personally communicated in confidence.
9. Oct, 16 the most serious of education, 10.
10. Rusconi editions, Milan.
11. Karl Rahner. The Second betrayed, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2009, II and.
12. These have been published in Karl Rahner. A critical analysis, edited by Father Serafino Lanzetta, Published By Cantagalli, Siena, 2009.
13. These have been published in Karl Rahner. Critical approximations, edited by David Berger, Publisher Franz Schmitt, victory bug 2004